DOJ Opinion No. 029, s. 1998

DOJ OPINION NO. 029 , s. 1998 February 26, 1998 Chairman Perfecto R. Yasay, Jr. Securities and Exchange Commission SEC Building, EDSA, Greenhills City of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila Sir : This refers to your request for a "definite ruling" on the query of Matsushita Electric Philippines Corporation (MEPCO) "on whether said corporation, which is partly owned by foreigners, can legally engage in direct selling of Panasonic Panaboard to companies, hotels, schools, convention centers and the like as well as government, institutions and agencies without violating the Retail Trade Nationalization Law (RA 1180)". LLPhil A Panaboard as described in your letter is an electric print board which has the ability to copy exactly all information written, drawn or stuck in the screen and has been designed to meet the varying requirements of today's modern office environment and comes in different sizes with features like multicopies, logic control, plain paper interface option and personal computer interface option. The query, it appears, is raised in connection with section 4 of R.A. No. 1180, as amended, which pertinently provides, to wit: "SEC. 4. As used in this Act, the term 'retail business' shall mean any act, occupation or calling of habitually selling direct to the general public merchandise, commodities or good for consumption , but shall not include: xxx xxx xxx "(c) a manufacturer or processor selling to industrial and commercial users and consumers who use the products bought by them to render service to the general public and/or to produce or manufacture goods which are in turn sold by them . LexLib . . . " (emphasis supplied) With regret, we are constrained to decline rendition of the opinion requested for the reason that the Secretary of Justice, as Attorney-General, does not render and give legal advice save on specific legal questions formulated and submitted by national government functionaries such as department heads or the chiefs of bureaus and offices called upon to rule or act on cases, controversies or matters actually arising and still pending in their respective offices (Sec. of Justice Opn. No. 116, s. 1985; No. 114, s. 1996) Although it was the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission who made the request for opinion, the instant query was actually posed by the above-named corporation (id., No. 151, s. 1991, citing Opn. No. 107, s. 1974). Moreover, the real party-in-interest in this case is a private party and the issue involves its substantive rights. By established precedents, the Secretary of Justice also refrains from opining on issues affecting the substantive rights of private parties who may not feel bound by his opinion which, in the first place, are merely advisory in nature and who may prefer to have the matter settled by the courts (id., No. 36, s. 1984; No. 46, s. 1981). Dctai Very truly yours, (SGD.) SILVESTRE H. BELLO III Secretary